The Top 40

“It is only an idiotic assumption that reality can only be grasped through the senses and scientific measurement…”

“Atheists are intellectually lazy or simply obstinate.”

“Atheists are basically perverts who wish to be able to extol their perversion's on the world.”

Gotcha. “Idiotic“, “intellectually lazy“, “perverts” is so very godly. Not to mention, my favorite “obstinate”, yeah, not too insulting and just a tad ironic.

But it’s us atheists who are rabid and bash -

“I've noticed that around the internet, its the atheists who are the most rabidly religious, zealous, and likely to proselytize. They bash Christianity with wicked glee…

Carry on with your faith, you're all fine examples of leading a loving, Christian life.

tim

"Nobody talks so constantly about God as those who insist that there is no God."
- Heywood Broun

Tim, if someone is acting in a manner which is intellectually slothful and refuses to bend, what would you call such a person?

What about a person who refuses to engage ideas and instead attacks people and side issues?

C Taylor -

Weeeelll......I know what I'd call 'em, but I expect there are more acceptable terms.

Being a practitioner of Taoism, I don't know if there is a God or not. I don't ask or question that aspect of life.

Atheists amuse me with their fixation on denying something they cannot prove exists or doesn't. Very silly pastime.

As for the Activist Christians, the Scripture quoters, I can't for the life of me figure out where their Eleventh Commandment is. That is the one instructing them to go forth and make sure no one commits a sin anywhere. They'll legislate any law possible to keep you, me Chas, Ghost, Tim Christopher and yes you too Gerard from stepping off thestraight and narrow.

Between the Progressives in every room of the house except the bedroom and the Christians lingering in that room, no is going to get fat, laid, smoke, drink, watch porn, drive the wrong car or use too much electricity.

Welcome to the New USSA.

Consider the tadpole transmuting into a frog.

Consider the caterpillar transmuting into a butterfly.

Consider the seed transmuting into a plant or a person.

Consider replacing the word 'transmuting' with the term 'naturally developing.'

Each of these developments is a 'death' of the former into a new entity; each new entity now experiencing an additional dimension of existence -- the frog is no longer water-bound, the butterfly is no longer 2-dimensionally earth-bound, seed has its potential unleashed by something beyond its shell or medium. For the plant seed it's warmth, moisture, nutrients, light,...and something in its own nature.

If I may argue from analogy, is God to us what moisture, heat, nutrients are to a naive seed?

Does the tadpole conceive of its eventual frogness? Does the caterpillar imagine the possibility of its butterflyness?

Do we 'die,''transmute,''develop naturally' into a new dimension and existence even more profound, richer, more beneficial than human existence?

And if we wish to call that Wisdom/Power/Thatness that always and all-ways establishes those pathways, God, I suspect that's fine with It.

This seems most inductively logical, scientific
given the multiplicity of evidence for generalizing the essential principle [call it God or Suzy if you like] from numerous worldly examples. It makes life and living challenging and comforting. If you want something easier to do then pick your nose or someone else's nose.

The last time God and I spoke S/He said, "Mind your proper business and duties on Earth. If that doesn't keep you busy enough I'll give you some new problems to deal with. After you die we can discuss your complaints and why you did not sincerely use the training offered by Moses, Buddha, Jesus, Ramana Maharshi, and the Marx Brothers."

Yes, let's all stoop to the LIEberal tactics to scare other braindeads into seeing things our way.

More retardedness.....

Live and let live, or die, or bounce from one crisis to another or fall asleep on the couch.
I have my beliefs and my values and my life and I don't much care what other folks do. I expect the same indifference from others.
I associate with people that I like and stay away from those I don't like.
I don't care if others worship Satan or Zeus or Wicca or shave their asses and walk backwards.
I do care if what others do affects me adversely.
People that mind their own business are OK.
People that try to mind my business should bag their ass and stay out of my way.

All these different belief systems and ways of life, let me ask: how's it workin' out for ya?

They'll legislate any law possible to keep you, me Chas, Ghost, Tim Christopher and yes you too Gerard from stepping off the straight and narrow.

Really?

I'll be 70 in the Spring, and I'm not sure I can remember any Christian people making laws to restrict my activities.

Rob, how about those so called blue laws, laws banning liquor sales after midnight on Saturday until Monday. Abortion, prayer in town meetings, at HS commencements, just about any moral law not concerning those concerning murder assault and such.

Then we can get into dry towns and counties, anti cohabitation laws and same sex marriage. Whether one agrees or not with those laws, those are not Libertarian choices.

Oh, you're a "Libertarian." Of course.

Well, lessee. First of all, I wonder how many times you have personally encountered any of those blue laws, anti-cohabitation laws (Really? I've been living with girls without marriage in Texas, New Hampshire, Maine, Illinois, Oregon and California since the '60s,) etc. That sounds like a list of someone else's complaints.

I did know some dry counties in Texas in the late '60s; anybody who wanted to drink knew where the county line was, and there was a liquor store on every highway. As far as the liquor stores being closed on Sundays, we somehow all managed, and frankly the peace was welcome. Planning ahead for one day a week wasn't seen as onerous even by the alkies.

Gay (or "same sex, as you'd have it) marriage is transparently a part of Gramsci's Long March Through The Institutions (the institution of marriage and family, in this case,) and has nothing to do with anybody's freedom, particularly since there have been domestic partnership laws on the books for 30 years or more.

Public acknowledgement of the existence of God has been a primary part of American life since the time of the Constitution (George Washington added "So help me, God" to his oath of office, did you know that?,) and frankly complaining about it smacks of an adolescent's need for attention. Don't close your eyes, don't bow your head, and ignore it; it's not about you, believe it or not, and it'll be over in a minute. In return, we'll be polite about your ongoing rebellion against your parents even though we'd prefer you'd carry it on in private, OK? By the way, if you don't believe in God, what's your objection to murder, anyway?

Finally, in re "Libertarian choices": whatever one believes about marijuana, plumping for legalization and therefore the creation of another monster Government bureaucracy where there was formerly only personal choice (the police having notably ignored marijuana use even in public for decades,) particularly in the name of less government, is lunacy.

Rob, I never said I was a Libertarian. And I'm a year older than you. Thanks for acknowledging the dry towns and counties in Texas. Other states have the same. SC, PA, CT, have strict liquor sales. MA had cohabitation laws in the '70's.

As for any form of dope, I don't indulge. A couple of beers a week at home on the deck is the limit.

There's a bunch of people out there that wish to tell you how to live, both on the Left and the Right. There are enough church leaders caught committing fraud, diddling their young parishioners of both sexes, and politicians on the left promising everyone free everything while lining their pockets.

Don't put the religious trip on me, or the Libertarian label either. As I said I do practice the Tao, I'll accept what that brings. Read the basics and you'll understand the how and why of my comments.

The Distinction

A time would come within a few years, when Ruben Vega would go to the church in Benson, kneel in the confessional, and say to the priest, “Bless me, Father, for I have sinned. It has been thirty-seven years since my last confession . . . Since then I have fornicated with many women, maybe eight hundred. No, not that many, considering my work. Maybe six hundred only.”

And the priest would say, “Do you mean bad women or good women?”

And Rueben Vega would say, “They are all good, Father.”

He would tell the priest he had stolen, in that time, about twenty thousand head of cattle but only maybe fifteen horses. The priest would ask him if he had committed murder. Rueben Vega would say no.

“All that stealing you’ve done,” the priest would say, “You’ve never killed anyone?”

And Rueben Vega would say, “Yes, of course, but it was not to commit murder. You understand the distinction? Not to kill someone to take a life, but only to save my own.” Elmore Leonard

VW,

You're the one who introduced the "Libertarian choices" routine. If you don't want to claim it, don't start.

You're not the only one, after all, who's read Taoism. It would seem apparent that following the Tao would indicate letting other people make their own laws and decisions - like dry counties, for instance. They voted for it, remember? Baptists have rights, too, however annoying that may be to you. If gay guys can indulge in public cocksucking in San Francisco, there's enough room in this country for a few enclaves of fundamentalists. I don't care to watch blowjobs, so I don't. I've lived in Baptist counties, and mostly found it boring, so I left. Investing energy in situations that don't affect you is far from Taoist.

And yes, ranting about laws one has no intention of following seems adolescent to me - particularly at our age. Equating prayer at public functions with an abridgement of your rights is the posture of someone still fighting with his parents, which is the world's biggest waste of time.

Rob, I used "Libertarian Choices" only as a means of separating the points. Second, I started practicing the Tao in the Nam, back in '64. Been with it ever since. Not easy for it requires much of one's inner self. But it does become more so with time. I would guess it is akin to the dedication of a monk or nun. One lives it. In this world sheeesh.

Everyone makes their own choices; I have no quarrel with others' selections. If they impinge on me I'll move away. Easier than getting into a huge dust=up over something that really isn't significant in the scheme of life. Unless it becomes a matter of life or death.

I have asked the great Frenchman to thread this needle once again.

"The eighteenth-century philosophers had a quite simple explanation for the gradual weakening of beliefs. They would say that religion’s zeal had to burn itself out as freedom and education increased. How vexing that the facts are in conflict with this theory.

Man alone of all created beings shows a natural disgust for existence and an immense longing to exist; he despises life and fears annihilation. In Europe, Christianity has allowed itself to be closely linked with the powers of this world. Today these powers are collapsing and it is virtually buried beneath their ruins. Unbelievers in Europe attack Christians more as political enemies than as religious opponents. There are certain European populations whose unbelief is matched only by their brutishness and ignorance, whereas in America you see one of the most free and enlightened nations in the world fulfilling all their public religious duties with enthusiasm.
Religion in America looks upon civil liberty as a noble exercise for man’s faculties and upon the world of politics as a field prepared by the Creator for the efforts of man’s intelligence.

I doubt whether man can ever support at the same time complete religious independence and entire political freedom and am drawn to the thought that if a man is without faith, he must serve someone and if he is free, he must believe. When authority in religious matters no longer exists than in political matters, men soon take fright at the sight of this boundless independence. This constant upheaval in everything brings disquiet and exhaustion. I would judge without hesitation that the citizens of a democracy run less a risk of being brutalized by believing that their souls will be passing to the body of a pig than by thinking that their soul is nothing at all.

As long as religion relies upon feelings which are the consolation of every suffering, it may attract the human heart, but by uniting with different political powers, can form only burdensome alliances. Religion must, with care, draw the circle within which they intend to contain the human spirit, while outside the circle the mind should be left entirely free to guide itself."

There are some Christians who do wish to pass laws to restrict or control behavior, to be sure. In fact, it was left-leaning Christian groups that brought us things like Social Security, Medicare, Minimum Wage and many other social programs.

The Blue Laws are a good example of this kind of Christian-based meddling, but they date back a century or more ago. These days I cannot think of a single law proposed by Christian groups or passed which in any way restricts presently allowed behavior except opposition to murdering babies in the name of choice.

On the other hand, the massive host of laws, a virtual tidal wave of legislation, regulation, and control, has been roaring over the nation for decades now from the left, from non-Christians, from people who have no official religious affiliation at all - in fact, often from people who hold religion in contempt and even consider it destructive.

Law after law after law passed often over strong objection forcing more and more restrictions on our liberty are constantly imposed on us in small and great ways. And not a single one from Christians or any other official religion (except in some cases Islam, lately).

And then there are the court cases, like a farm recently ordered by courts to have homosexual weddings on their property.

So this attempt to seem even handed or whatever it is to say "I fear both sides!" is simply asinine and without the slightest shred of merit. It is a mockery of current events and reason its self.

And thank you James for that DeTocqueville quote. The man, as always, was dead on.

This is getting to the point of conflating Politics and Religion which makes a wonderful discussion.
But I'd like to keep the two slightly separate for the moment in so far as able. I think we should agree that living an ethical life is a goal of a 'religious' individual, you can call it moral and that must guide one in their daily life.

While it guides one it needs to be kept out of politics so that it doesn't infringe upon others and their beliefs as best possible. There are places there agreement has to be met: Murder, theft, injury to others, fraud. Crimes that the state can deal with justly and well it should do so swiftly.

The other nonsense such as 'hate speech, smoking, being fat best left to the individual by making them pay for their errors. A punch in the face for rudeness corrects much bad behavior.
the rule of "Don't start a fight; Don't lose a fight! will stop bullying. All this should be kept in the neighborhood. It used to be that way.

We've become so civilized that we no longer have any morals of our own; we look to the state for guidance and succor. The state has none. Look who runs it.

I live in a dry state, on Sundays, thanks to a law established because of do gooder "christians".

So what does everybody do?
They stock up on Saturday.

This law didn't change anybody as the do gooders expected, it may have made their preconceived notion worse.

Laws and religion, helluva combo there.
Probably the worst of both evils.

People of Faith have a logical idea of what Life is all about.

Other people know what law and order is all about.

The two don't seem to go together, do they?

chas,

That seems to be the case, all right.

The legalistic would appear to see the world primarily in terms of rules (and who rules, come to think of it.) It's always surprised me to be confronted with demands to justify my turning to God. Somehow some people see it as a challenge, and the discussion quickly turns to "Oh yeah? Well how do you justify (floods, earthquakes, bad breath, rudeness, etcetcetc?)" "What about that time when (fill in the blank?"

And I take a cue from Breitbart, and answer "So?"

For me the only problem with any of it is when people force their ideals onto others.

It matters not whether it is laws or religion, I just don't care, keep it to yourself.

I also understand the base of both those things are to do just that, force others to see things your way.

Law - comply or else
Religion - witnessing

I've observed this is more true in urban/suburban areas than rural.

Yeah, I had the Jehovah Witnesses come to my door now and again in the '70s, and I didn't like it. But I just shined them on and they left.

On the other hand, I spent the '6os and '70s having unspeakably loud rock "music" shoved down my throat in the endless tantrum of the hip, and there was no getting away from that. All things considered, I preferred the Jesus freaks, who didn't stand outside my door screaming all night after I asked them to go away.

It's about 180' from the end of the driveway to the gate, then another 40' from there to the front door, but last weekend one of them JW people did just that. She also had to walk past my detached office/workshop and I watched her the whole time thru the window over my desk. My wife was in the shower so she didn't answer the door and the JW stuck a pamphlet in the door and left. Innocent enough, but where does she get off coming onto our property and stuffing her views into our door?

Few years ago the campaigning sheriff did something similar.

(suppose my dog them, would I be responsible? You bet, and never mind that the bitten person was uninvited and trespassing)

I resent the notion that people that don't even know me use my property as they see fit. I don't do that to them and in fact the very idea to do so never even entered my head.

From an early age I was taught that if it ain't yours, leave it alone. Seems very few people now a days are aware of such a concept and spend much of their time bothering others.